December 2019 General Election Thread

munchymagic wrote: Unfortunately no Union out there can do anything about crap wages, this is down to the individual for accepting those terms and conditions in the first place.

So if someone is forced to accept crap wages just to put food on the table they should just put up with it and be happy with their crap pay? The point of a union is that employees have more bargaining power collectively than they do individually.

Dentonholmersimpson wrote:

Markovitch wrote: Denton, why do you think I want to stop you coming out the EU? Go for it. Your country, do what you want, nothing to do me, but leave us to ours. All I ask.

The fact you lost the first Indyref means you can't come out with the same old, same old '' Scotland didn't vote for brexit'' crap because you are part of thr union and the union voted to leave.

How many referendums do have to have before you accept the result of at least one of them.

We can do what we want and 'come out with what crap' we want in our country.

Boris can choose when to call a general election, so we reserve the right to call a referendum when we like.

The agreement was that no referendum would be called unless there was a major political event. The key policy/ fact the Cameron Government lobbied on was that leaving the UK would mean losing our place in Europe. Brexit has changed that, so the key reason to remain in the UK has gone, that constitutes a major political shift and so new referendum.

The SNP I believe are the most powerful party in Europe in their own country. The SNP wants independence. While the people keep voting for them they have a mandate to pursue independence so its not going away, and we will win one day

I don't know anybody that wants independence for Scotland.

Kessler wrote:

munchymagic wrote: Unfortunately no Union out there can do anything about crap wages, this is down to the individual for accepting those terms and conditions in the first place.

So if someone is forced to accept crap wages just to put food on the table they should just put up with it and be happy with their crap pay? The point of a union is that employees have more bargaining power collectively than they do individually.

Yes, and employers can just shut up shop and go elsewhere, how do you think large multinational companies are enticed here in the first place?

If you think Labours plan to tax the big earners and big companies and strenghthen the unions, not to mention 4 day weeks and scrapping the opt out of the working time directive, to mention just a few ideas is going to attract companies to this country, well, dream on.

Kessler wrote:

munchymagic wrote: Unfortunately no Union out there can do anything about crap wages, this is down to the individual for accepting those terms and conditions in the first place.

So if someone is forced to accept crap wages just to put food on the table they should just put up with it and be happy with their crap pay? The point of a union is that employees have more bargaining power collectively than they do individually.

I have mentioned it before on here that I have been in a Union for as long as I can remember, I am not working but I still pay my membership.

Never used the Union as a collective or to try to attain more wages, I used them when a fatuous employer thought that it would be a good idea for staff to cover the engineers jobs whilst they were on holiday so I asked their assistance as it was not safe.

"So if someone is forced to accept crap wages just to put food on the table they should just put up with it and be happy with their crap pay?"

You answered your own question there, basically 'yes' because the said person accepted their crap pay so they should be happy with it, nearly everyone believes that they are worth more than what they are paid.

What did the Unions ever do for us .... ?

I haven't got time ! ..
I'd be here for hours ?

munchymagic wrote:

Kessler wrote:

munchymagic wrote: Unfortunately no Union out there can do anything about crap wages, this is down to the individual for accepting those terms and conditions in the first place.

So if someone is forced to accept crap wages just to put food on the table they should just put up with it and be happy with their crap pay? The point of a union is that employees have more bargaining power collectively than they do individually.

I have mentioned it before on here that I have been in a Union for as long as I can remember, I am not working but I still pay my membership.

Never used the Union as a collective or to try to attain more wages, I used them when a fatuous employer thought that it would be a good idea for staff to cover the engineers jobs whilst they were on holiday so I asked their assistance as it was not safe.

"So if someone is forced to accept crap wages just to put food on the table they should just put up with it and be happy with their crap pay?"

You answered your own question there, basically 'yes' because the said person accepted their crap pay so they should be happy with it, nearly everyone believes that they are worth more than what they are paid.

If they need the money to put food on the table, they don't have to be happy with their pay, but unless they have another offer which pays more, they certainly have to accept their current situation, yes. I can't see how it could be any different?

munchymagic wrote: the said person accepted their crap pay so they should be happy with it

I disagree. People have to eat so of course they will "accept" crap pay rather than have no pay. But that doesn't mean they need to be happy about being exploited, they can and should try to get better pay and unions can help with collective bargaining.

100 reasons you should never vote for any party that has Corbyn as leader.

order-order.com/2017/06/08/100-times-jer...yn-sided-terrorists/

Kessler wrote:

munchymagic wrote: the said person accepted their crap pay so they should be happy with it

I disagree. People have to eat so of course they will "accept" crap pay rather than have no pay. But that doesn't mean they need to be happy about being exploited, they can and should try to get better pay and unions can help with collective bargaining.

Sad thing is though Kes is that some people cannot get their heads around the fact that they are paid the going rate for the job that they do.

What about the small business owner with staff to pay and there currently is no work coming in, they will be more disgruntled than the person on crap pay.

Look on the bright side Kes - you have work

munchymagic wrote: Sad thing is though Kes is that some people cannot get their heads around the fact that they are paid the going rate for the job that they do.

Dear god ....?????
So far up your own

Where were the unions when our country was being swamped by migrants willing to work for next to nothing, driving wages down, blowing any decent going rate out the window.

Nowhere to be seen springs to mind.

Keep talking Al.

You are increasing the Labour vote every time you post

My granddaughters work in the care industry and as a consequence are not the best paid. A couple of years ago Labour were advocating a pay rise for the young , the thought a few pounds extra an hour would be great. I sat them down and explained that if everyone that worked at their home got a rise ,their employer would have to find £ 100+ an hour or nearly a thousand pound a day. I explained that the only way to save money would be less staff so no jobs. Once explained it was clear to them but the problem with young ones nowadays is that they only see pound signs. This is where Labour promise pay rises to the young and want them to have a vote.

Chilledsilly wrote:

munchymagic wrote: Sad thing is though Kes is that some people cannot get their heads around the fact that they are paid the going rate for the job that they do.

Dear god ....?????
So far up your own

If a job advertises at 25k which is the going rate for all other employees there and you are lucky enough to get an interview then would you tell them that you are so special that you are worth 28k?

Chilledsilly wrote: What did the Unions ever do for us .... ?

I haven't got time ! ..
I'd be here for hours ?

Here's a little story and it's 100% true.

When I was in the 6th form my mother asked her employer whether I might get a summer job. The employer said OK, we could do with an extra pair of hands when other workers are on holiday.

When the union, SOGAT got wind of my temporary appointment, they insisted that the job be offered to existing, unemployed SOGAT members. So I didn't get the job. In fact no-one was hired at all. It was just a ruse to squeeze more overtime out of the employer.

Apparently the arguments about who got overtime were legendary, culminating in brawling on the factory floor on one occasion.

So to answer the question 'What did the unions do for us...?'. Well for me they stopped me earning a few quid in the summer.

paddockspark wrote: My granddaughters work in the care industry and as a consequence are not the best paid. A couple of years ago Labour were advocating a pay rise for the young , the thought a few pounds extra an hour would be great. I sat them down and explained that if everyone that worked at their home got a rise ,their employer would have to find £ 100+ an hour or nearly a thousand pound a day. I explained that the only way to save money would be less staff so no jobs. Once explained it was clear to them but the problem with young ones nowadays is that they only see pound signs. This is where Labour promise pay rises to the young and want them to have a vote.

Research in the US has shown that states that raise the minimum wage see an increase in employment.

- Workers have more money to send which stimulates the economy so creating other job opportunities.
- Better wages attract better people, so they are more efficient.
- Workers have more money so they have better health, less days off sick.
- More money means someone can be brought in (at home) if there is a crisis at home, less days off.
- A better economy means cost increases can be passed on to customers

That's what I keep trying to explain to Laffy. Look after your workers a bit better and your profits will rise because they will work harder, stick around longer etc. Pay a few quid more in tax and you won't have to pay for security or health insurance. Its cheaper in the long run. Socialism isn't about giving things to people for free, its about providing them with a good life so that they see the benefit in obeying society's norms- getting a job, paying tax etc. Then we all get to enjoy what we have rather than worrying all the time that we will lose it.

www.businessforafairminimumwage.org/news...o-not-cause-job-loss

Markovitch wrote:

paddockspark wrote: My granddaughters work in the care industry and as a consequence are not the best paid. A couple of years ago Labour were advocating a pay rise for the young , the thought a few pounds extra an hour would be great. I sat them down and explained that if everyone that worked at their home got a rise ,their employer would have to find £ 100+ an hour or nearly a thousand pound a day. I explained that the only way to save money would be less staff so no jobs. Once explained it was clear to them but the problem with young ones nowadays is that they only see pound signs. This is where Labour promise pay rises to the young and want them to have a vote.

Research in the US has shown that states that raise the minimum wage see an increase in employment.

- Workers have more money to send which stimulates the economy so creating other job opportunities.
- Better wages attract better people, so they are more efficient.
- Workers have more money so they have better health, less days off sick.
- More money means someone can be brought in (at home) if there is a crisis at home, less days off.
- A better economy means cost increases can be passed on to customers

That's what I keep trying to explain to Laffy. Look after your workers a bit better and your profits will rise because they will work harder, stick around longer etc. Pay a few quid more in tax and you won't have to pay for security or health insurance. Its cheaper in the long run. Socialism isn't about giving things to people for free, its about providing them with a good life so that they see the benefit in obeying society's norms- getting a job, paying tax etc. Then we all get to enjoy what we have rather than worrying all the time that we will lose it.

www.businessforafairminimumwage.org/news...o-not-cause-job-loss

As per the norm, the publications you quote from are totally unbiased.

I prefer to stick to ‘hard work brings reward’ and ‘living within your means’

Laffy wrote: I prefer to stick to ‘hard work brings reward’ and ‘living within your means’

Boris heading for a 100 plus
Majority.
Bretix party vote starting to splinter.
Happy days.

Official even if you wernt sure.
SNP are scum.

Scottish Independence, what a sham, why don't the SNP grow a pair and tell it as it is, the don't want to be ruled by the English.

However, once the gravy from the South of the Border dry's up, they are gambling Scotland's future on the gravy from Brussels starting to flow.

So, the SNP will move from being funded and ruled by the English to funded and ruled by a bunch of un-elected foreigners, some Independence !

There is no doubt the UK is stronger as a Union, however if we have to get rid of Scotland as the price for leaving the EU, crack on.

Will they offer Visa's for our druggies to use the drug consumption rooms ?

What will the currency be ?

Will Alex Salmond legalise sexual assault ?

The failure of the SNP's monetary policies would mean if Scotland became Independent they would need to negotiate with the Bank of England to secure a lender of last resort, currency requirements would demand this. So, if the current volatility in oil prices continues (which is virtually guaranteed) an independent Scotland is not well placed to deal with this, the economy is to small. So, the inevitable would happen, instead of Governing Scotland as part of the Union we would end up owning it.

Do the Scottish know they are voting for, what sort of deal would they get from there biggest benefactor, how many referendums would it take to gain this...........Sounds familiar, Eh !

Keep reading The Sun boys ...

One Brexit party candidate complaining because he was standing in a seat with very small Tory majority. Farage isn't going to challenge the already-held Tory seats. But he won't help the Tories in the other seats - seats they need to win to get a bigger majority.

AlbertRoss wrote: One Brexit party candidate complaining because he was standing in a seat with very small Tory majority. Farage isn't going to challenge the already-held Tory seats. But he won't help the Tories in the other seats - seats they need to win to get a bigger majority.

Farage has changed his tune for some reason, I wonder what it is ?

Corbyns soldiers at their best.
Another vote winner for steptoe.

The male equivalent of Katie Hopkins, headline grabbing parasite.....

Laffy wrote: My post was about Labour-now a shadow cabinet minister on the rack since I went out for a ride this morning.I can’t keep up!

If you have Tories who are anti Semitic, then lists have the list.

Have you tried using Viagra?

Isn’t it amazing how many service stations now sell these tablets?I wonder why they are always in motorway ones.

I thought you only got a hard shoulder on the motorway

AlbertRoss wrote: One Brexit party candidate complaining because he was standing in a seat with very small Tory majority. Farage isn't going to challenge the already-held Tory seats. But he won't help the Tories in the other seats - seats they need to win to get a bigger majority.

Who else are they helping then? Brexit party are siding with the Tories and proving beyond doubt that they are working to protect the interests of the establishment.

Mammoth wrote:

AlbertRoss wrote: One Brexit party candidate complaining because he was standing in a seat with very small Tory majority. Farage isn't going to challenge the already-held Tory seats. But he won't help the Tories in the other seats - seats they need to win to get a bigger majority.

Who else are they helping then? Brexit party are siding with the Tories and proving beyond doubt that they are working to protect the voice of the people.

Amended that for you....

You'll only get your bankers brexit and sell off of the NHS this way. That's not what the Labour leave vote wanted. Labour are offering a brexit deal than can reunite the country.

Im sure murdoch pays farage and Johnson 800k a year to get the voice of the people. How many people on here feel they share a lot in common with rupert murdoch?

Good to see Johnson couldn't even manage to put a wreath on a monument without [censored] up. According to the Internet he was chronically hung over. Luckily state controlled tv covered up for him showing a clip from 3 years ago. A clip they accidentally ordered from their archives 10 days before.
National embarrassment

I prefer the view that Boris is a man of the people-flawed but charismatic and patriotic-unlike comrade Corbyn who prefers Marxist solidarity-as evidenced by his support of the ousted Bolivian president, who manipulated recent elections to extend his tenure in office.

Man's an utter [censored]. What has Bolivia got to do with the price of eggs? Now turns out the Russians have been funding Boris's Brexit campaign to the tune of millions but Murdoch and his paid puppets say nothing. Boris suppressing the report. Rupert Murdoch, the employer of Johnson and Farage, the voice of the people, the people of Leningrad.

Why is your man Jezza supporting, yet again, a South American left wing dictator who has retained power through election fraud-siding with Russia, Venezuela,Cuba and Mexico?Frankly it’s got nothing to do with Corbyn and his emotional attachment to Latin American leaders so get out of the way and focus on the UK.

Boris is actually proving to be a rather agile and adept politician-having just seen off Farage for a more moderate approach to Brexit.

AlbertRoss wrote: One Brexit party candidate complaining because he was standing in a seat with very small Tory majority. Farage isn't going to challenge the already-held Tory seats. But he won't help the Tories in the other seats - seats they need to win to get a bigger majority.

Farage wants to get elected Brexit Party MPs into Parliament....so presumably if he can do that these MPs would be available to back the Conservatives with votes in Parliament on crucial issues

Anyone else think that mammoth is a Labour Party plant. Only seems to post on this thread since the election was announced.

The Tories have fully costed the Labour spending plans post election but not their own. Surely you cost your own plans before anyone else's.

They call Corbyn a communist but refuse to publish the report on Russian interference in British politics.

In a multi-bag of Space Raiders you now get 8 packets for a pound instead of 10.

That's happened on a Tory watch. Never did care about the poor.

Laffy wrote: Why is your man Jezza supporting, yet again, a South American left wing dictator who has retained power through election fraud-siding with Russia, Venezuela,Cuba and Mexico?Frankly it’s got nothing to do with Corbyn and his emotional attachment to Latin American leaders so get out of the way and focus on the UK.

Boris is actually proving to be a rather agile and adept politician-having just seen off Farage for a more moderate approach to Brexit.

So Rupert Murdoch told one employee to back off so that another can push Brexit through, then he can sell News Corp to Disney for billions. Boris doesn't have any say in anything, he's a bought pawn being moved by his pay master. Rupert Murdoch, defender of democracy, ask anyone in Liverpool.

Can't imagine why Rupert would be paying £800k pa to his 2 employees. Respecting the will of the people and all that.

The London offices of Rupert Murdoch’s Fox Networks were raided by European Union antitrust regulators as part of a probe of the distribution of sports media rights.

The inspections were carried out in several EU countries at companies related to broadcasting rights for various sports events, the European Commission said in a statement late Tuesday. Officials are expected to stay through Wednesday and possibly Thursday at the West London offices of Fox Networks Group, according to the Daily Telegraph, which first reported the raid.

The probe comes at a difficult time for 21st Century Fox (FOX), the owner of Fox Networks, which spent months trying to gain U.K. and EU approval to purchase Sky, the big European pay-TV service

fortune.com/2018/04/11/rupert-murdoch-fo...london-eu-antitrust/

Meanwhile away from fantasy land.

The biggest fantasy is you paying tax Alan

Markovitch wrote: The biggest fantasy is you paying tax Alan

Cant hold a candle to you having a life sad lad.

Stop biting every time I out your beloved snp.

It really doesn't suit you.

We are trying to build a fair system that supports those in genuine need. That effort is undermined by layabouts who choose to sponge. I will never cease to remind the workshy that their lifestyle is unacceptable to the hard-working taxpayers who have to fund them.

Markovitch wrote: We are trying to build a fair system that supports those in genuine need. That effort is undermined by layabouts who choose to sponge. I will never cease to remind the workshy that their lifestyle is unacceptable to the hard-working taxpayers who have to fund them.

Is it being farmed out as a child or living out of suitcase that creates such bitterness.
All that money yet living a loveless life trying a failing to even hold his own on a football forum.

You'll be a good catch for someone who is deaf,blind and lacks a sense of smell.

And what makes people who can create GIFs and jog up monroes refuse to work?